Response, Rev. 1 Action Items from Mound Work Group Meeting (June 5, 2012) August 22, 2012

Responses to Action Items Introduced During the Mound Work Group Meeting

of June 5, 2012

Mel Chew, Billy Smith, and Bryce Rich

Background and Summary:

In the DOE defense programs there was an effort to produce stable compounds of tritium (i.e.,

materials that would effectively bind tritium without decomposing or degassing) by combining

tritium with various metals. Mound was involved with these programs and thirty‐one (31)

different tritide compounds were investigated in the 1960s and 70s (Ref. #6, SRDB Ref. ID

#39682). Because of the chemical reactivity of hydrogen, many of the compounds were

“reactive” and basically chemically unstable in so far as they would readily disassociate and

release the tritium (hydrogen). In addition, the handling of tritium resulted in the creation of

compounds of tritium with other materials present in the workplace, such as organically bound

tritium (OBT), and other non‐metallic materials. The “reactivity” of these compounds was

variable for different compounds, ranging from readily soluble to functionally “stable” in body

fluids (water, etc.). Thus the term Stable Metal Tritides (SMT) has meaning as it relates to the

chemical stability of some metal tritides, although many of the metal tritides fall in the

“reactive” range.

The term SMT also has a dosimetric significance due to the difficulties of performing internal

dosimetry following intake of these particles. Tritium is a unique element due to its high

chemical reactivity and its very low maximum energy beta emission of approximately 19 keV.

The very low energy beta particles require special counting capabilities, such as Liquid

Scintillation Counting, and the metallic compound particles of which the tritium is a part are an

effective shield in preventing many of the betas from depositing energy in the cells of the body.

Hence there is uncertainty of detection and dosimetry of the tritium in these particles in the

body. Elemental tritium and reactive compounds of tritium are readily absorbed in body fluids

and become systemic, and are also readily eliminated through urine and other body excretions,

which are easily analyzed by a liquid scintillation counter (LSC), while tritium as an SMT is not

(at least not while it is bound in the tritide particle). Even the materials identified as SMT are

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH

or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This

document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor.

This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC

§552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Page 1 of 17
                                             

                                       

                              

                              

                           

                                       

           

       

                      

   

                           

                             

                      

                           

                         

                             

                             

                       

                         

                                   

                      

                           

   

   

                           

                         

                         

                             

         

                               

                          

                           

         

                             

                                 

                                

Response, Rev. 1 Action Items from Mound Work Group Meeting (June 5, 2012) August 22, 2012

fundamentally insoluble to varying degrees, with urinary elimination patterns specific to each

SMT material.

Further uncertainties result from the fact that SMT materials were never present in the work

place alone, i.e. there were always reactive tritium compounds present in the SMT work zone,

making straightforward interpretation of the class of tritium compounds in the body uncertain.

Hence interpretation of internal dose from the urine samples, air samples or any of the

standard internal dosimetry analytical tools is problematic due a number of uncertainties.

The relatively small quantities of SMT materials present at any given time compared to other

sources of free tritium or reactive compounds, coupled with the need to control the metal

tritides as classified materials, reduced the exposure potential. The review of the uncertainties

associated with possible SMT exposure has resulted in questions from the Mound Working

Group of the ability of NIOSH to bound the doses from these sources in the facilities in which

they were handled/processed. These difficulties and uncertainties were known through the

years and documented in the internal Technical Basis Document and other publications in the

1990s.

NIOSH Approach:

SC&A (Ref. #10 and #11) has reviewed the stated uncertainties and has raised questions

regarding NIOSH’s approach and conclusions in the reconstruction of tritides. This paper

addresses these concerns and presents an approach to conservatively bound the internal dose

to those individuals who might have been exposed to the SMT of interest (compound identified

at the most insoluble/stable).

In addition to the urine sampling program, air sampling and smear survey results were always a

part of the radiological control programs at Mound for tritium detection and analyses. The

survey data from these control activities provide a database from which to develop bounding

estimates of maximum internal dose.

NIOSH has determined the approach to bound the potential doses to ancillary workers in the

facilities in which SMTs may be present is to utilize the large number of smear samples, which

were routinely taken in the facilities. Using these smears, NIOSH will then make a number of

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH

or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This

document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor.

This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC

§552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Page 2 of 17
                                             

                                       

                              

                              

                           

                                       

           

       

                   

       

                             

                        

                           

          

                             

                   

                                 

                   

                       

                             

         

                           

         

                                 

           

                             

                             

                             

                                   

                               

                                

                         

                            

                          

                                 

                            

                       

                             

                                   

                                  

Response, Rev. 1 Action Items from Mound Work Group Meeting (June 5, 2012) August 22, 2012

conservative assumptions related to calculating worker intakes and resulting bounding internal

doses, as stated below:

1.	 The bounding doses will be applied to all ancillary workers who were monitored for tritium

exposure at Mound. The primary workers (operational and scrap recovery) involved with

the SMT of interest are known and their doses will be determined through dose

reconstruction using urine bioassay results.

2.	 The bounding dose to all support and ancillary workers will be the 95th percentile doses

estimated by using the data from the tritium smears.

3.	 It will be assumed that all the tritium on the smears were from SMT materials of interest.

4.	 A conservative resuspension factor is chosen to derive the work place air concentrations

expected.

5.	 Workers are assumed to be exposed continuously for their entire work periods.

6.	 Doses from SMT of interest materials will be calculated as described in the NIOSH model

and/or other approved dose calculation methodologies.

7.	 Gaps in the smear data will be assumed to be continuous concentrations determined from

prior and post gap periods.

8.	 Doses will be calculated from the SMT of interest using the NIOSH model and assign the 95th

percentile doses to all monitored workers.

NIOSH’s position is that doses to support and ancillary workers, from possible exposure to the

SMT of interest, can be bounded using the swipe data. The model uses measured surface

contamiantion data from rooms at Mound where the work on the SMT of interest was

conducted and uses these contamination levels as if it were 100% of the SMT of interest. It is

assumed that any resuspended material was breathed in by workers as an intake of the SMT

material of interest. It must be noted that with the exception of two well known accidental

exposures, Mound never handled this material outside containment. The assumption is that

the tritium measured on swipes is 100% SMT’s which is very conservative and bounding. These

estimated intakes are then used to calculate doses to the worker. .

SC&A (Ref. #10 and #11) has questioned the use of swipe data because it is not 100%

contiguous over the entire operational and D&D periods of time. Interviews with the research

chemists and radiological health personnel that have firsthand knowledge of the operations

were specifically asked if any working situations occurred or they were made aware of that

would have caused the missing swipe data to be different than the data on either side of the

gap. The overall agreement was the data from both sides of the gaps should be adequate to

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH

or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This

document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor.

This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC

§552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Page 3 of 17
                                             

                                       

                              

                              

                           

                                       

           

       

                            

                           

                              

                             

                              

                         

   

                             

                              

                         

                    

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

     

                           

                             

                             

                                

                           

                              

                             

                                

                            

                           

                         

                         

                                

Response, Rev. 1 Action Items from Mound Work Group Meeting (June 5, 2012) August 22, 2012

extrapolate the data within the gaps. To confirm that workers did not have significantly

elevated potential for erxposure during the gap periods, the bioassay data over these time

periods was examined. The bioassay data suggest that the there were no unusual events that

resulted in increased tritium uptake by workers. NIOSH believes that the swipe data can be

used to reconstruct exposures to the tritides of interest and that these resulting doses are

adequately and conservatively bounded (see resosne 1c below for additional discuission on this

topic).

The following discussion responds to the four action items raised during the June 5, 2012

working group meeting for the Mound SEC petition evaluation. The action items #1 (a‐d) were

developed during the discussion of NIOSH’s paper, Potential Stable Metal Tritide Exposures at

the Mound Laboratory, Rev. 0 issued on March 14, 2012.

(1a) Address treatment of uncertainties in the tritide model (e.g., 50th vs.

95th percentile) distribution and review SC&A’s treatment.

Treatment of Uncertainty

SC&A’s evaluation (Ref. #10 and #11) of the variables and uncertainties associated with NIOSH’s

approach to the reconstruction of tritide dose for support staff workers at Mound (i.e., those

not directly involved in the handling of highly insoluble stable metal tritides) raises two major

points. The first of these is the uncertainly associated with the parameters used in the dose

calculation. The SC&A review systematically evaluated uncertainty in the 6 variables used in

the calculation of dose. The main conclusion derived from this review is that the dose

calculation is most impacted by the choice of the resuspension factor and the dose conversion

factor (DCF). It should be pointed out that the selection of input parameter values is a site

profile issue, assuming that one accepts the fundamental intake model put forth by NIOSH.

NIOSH would like to address several of the comments made regarding several of the

parameters.

While NIOSH acknowledges that each parameter in the dose calculation equation carries an

inherent uncertainty, we maintain that it is not reasonable to employ worst case assumptions

for each of these variables. The rationale for this lies in the bounding nature of the

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH

or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This

document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor.

This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC

§552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Page 4 of 17
                                             

                                       

                              

                              

                           

                                       

           

       

                          

                                 

                          

                          

                       

                           

                              

                     

                               

                            

                                     

                          

                 

                 

                         

                           

                             

                        

                                

                             

                            

               

           

                             

                                

                             

                                                            

                                     

                             

Response, Rev. 1 Action Items from Mound Work Group Meeting (June 5, 2012) August 22, 2012

methodology itself. NIOSH will use the 95th percentile value1 to establish an intake and

assumes that all the activity measured on the smear samples is due entirely to the presence of

a highly insoluble metal tritide. This is certainly a considerable overestimate, as there were

only two known contamination incidents involving the least soluble tritide compound. This use

of reasonable input parameters (or claimant favorable values when two equally plausible

alternatives exist) is consistent with how other bounding models using the 95th percentile have

been developed. The dose calculated in this manner, will be entered into IREP as a constant

value.

Because SC&A specifically questioned the reasonableness of NIOSH’s resuspension factor (RF)

of 5E‐05/m (SC&A report, section 4.3 (Ref. #10), a separate discussion of this input parameter is

warranted. This report recommends that the value used by NIOSH should be increased by

“about a factor of 5” to account for the fact that the RF’s cited in various source documents are

not based on removable smear data but on total surface contamination measurements. In fact,

the logic behind the recommendation contained in NUREG/CR‐5512 states:

The parameter RF0 is therefore assumed to describe loose (resuspendable)

contamination and the licensee can reduce this value by demonstrating that the fraction

of loose contamination at their facility is less than a specified fraction of total

contamination.

Further, a distinction must be made between the application of an acute and a chronic

resuspension factor. NIOSH is applying an acute resuspension factor to a chronic exposure

situation. This assumes that not only was the worker in the area containing the 95th percentile

contamination for every work hour of the year, but also assumes that the material was

disturbed by moderate work activity over the entire time period. For these reasons, NIOSH

believes that our proposed value of 5E‐05/m is appropriate.

Use of the 95th percentile values

As mentioned above, NIOSH proposes that for all workers who could have been exposed to

insoluble metal tritides the 95th percentile smear data will be used to bound intakes. For those

workers who have tritium bioassay data, the dose to the affected organ will be calculated

1 While the tritide white paper, issued on March 14, 2012, provided values using the 50th and 95th percentile,

NIOSH has decided to use the 95th percentile surface contamination values to bound tritide intakes.

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH

or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This

document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor.

This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC

§552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Page 5 of 17
                                             

                                       

                              

                              

                           

                                       

           

       

                           

                                    

                              

                           

               

                             

                        

                                   

                         

               

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 		 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 			

                           

                            

                         

                                   

   

                            

                         

                          

                          

                               

                             

                          

                                

                            

                               

                              

Response, Rev. 1 Action Items from Mound Work Group Meeting (June 5, 2012) August 22, 2012

assuming the bioassay data represents exposure to soluble tritium and then compared to the

dose estimated using the tritide model. The higher of these two doses will be used in the dose

reconstruction. For most cases evaluated up to 1980 (where an SEC class already exists for

those monitored for tritium) it is quite likely that, for non‐presumptive cancers, the bounding

dose will be that based on urine data.

In section 4.1.3 of SC&A’s reports (Ref. #10 and #11), SC&A points out some logical

inconsistency in the calculation of annual doses. The inconsistency centered on monthly data

missing in the annual doses. The annual doses failed to account for the gaps in the data. NIOSH

acknowledges this shortcoming and agrees that an approach similar to that described by

equation 4.5‐1 (Ref. #10 and #11) would be appropriate.

(1b) Ascertain the identity of the small number of operator and scrap

recovery workers post 1980. Under what conditions were the

SMT’s of interest used after 1980?

The identities of the small number of research (operational) and scrap recovery workers are

known (Ref. #3, SRDB #107797 and Ref. #12, SRDB #55962). Based on documented interviews

with personnel associated with research and scrap recovery operations, and in Mound progress

reports the SMT of interest was processed in the scrap recovery line only in 1984 (Ref. #3, SRDB

#107797).

Some clarification of tritide terminology is in order. Technically, a metal tritide compound is

any compound that is chemically formed stoichiometrically by the chemical combination of a

metal and tritium atoms. As different metal tritiated compounds are produced they exhibit

different physical and chemical properties. Most metal tritides are reactive compounds and are

not stable. The primary ones of interest to the DOE have been lithium and uranium tritides.

These compounds react readily with air, water and bodily fluids and are quite soluble and

adequately monitored via urine bioassay analyses. Reactive types of metal tritides are not

“stable metal tritides”. Stable metal tritides are ones that are non‐reactive in that they do not

oxidize easily nor are they pyrophoric and are insoluble in water and body fluids. Other non‐

metal tritides provided, by far, more potential for exposures included T2, HTO and OBT and are

monitored easily by urine bioassay (Ref. #1, SRDB # 116978). The stable metal tritides of

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH

or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This

document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor.

This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC

§552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Page 6 of 17
                                             

                                       

                              

                              

                           

                                       

           

       

                                 

                             

             

                           

                               

                              

                                 

                                 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

                           

                                  

                               

                           

                            

                               

                               

                                

                            

                              

                           

                              

                             

                                

                       

                                 

                            

                             

Response, Rev. 1 Action Items from Mound Work Group Meeting (June 5, 2012) August 22, 2012

interest worked at Mound are the ones that NIOSH will use to bound doses. The quantities of

these compounds used at Mound were trivial in comparison to the more common, but reactive,

tritide compounds (e.g. lithium and uranium tritides).

The tritium bioassay program requirements were driven by the soluble forms of tritium worked

at the plant and not the SMT forms since the soluble forms represented the much greater

hazard to workers (Ref. #9, SRDB #107056 and Ref. #2, SRDB #108244). Over Mound’s history

of working with the SMT of interest, two incidents (Ref. #12, SRDB #55962 and Ref. #4, #48837)

occurred, one during the 1970s and the other in 1993 that resulted in direct exposures to two

workers.

(1c) Address identified gaps in available swipes. What work (if any) was

being performed during the gap periods?

The developmental and production work with the SMT of interest occurred at Mound, with the

first couple of batches of SMTs in SW‐13 but primarily in SW‐150. This work was done between

1968 through 1974 when the campaign ended (Ref. #3, SRDB # 107797). The tritium scrap

recovery work was the primary work during the intermittent gap periods beginning in the

1980s. The work involving the SMTs of interest occurred in the tritium scrap recovery

operations in R‐108 in 1984, (Ref. #3, SRDB # 107797, Ref. #1, SRDB # 116979).

Most of the work actually occurred in SW‐150 during the research period of working on the

SMTs of interest. Figure 1 shows the relationship between the swipes and the average dose, by

period, for Room 108 from 1983‐1989. Figure 2 shows the relationship between the swipes

and average dose, by period, for Room SW‐8 for years 1980‐1989. Both of these graphs

indicate that the actual tritium doses, as determined through urine analyses, to workers, for

years following the SEC period, were extremely low. These graphs also indicate that there were

no unusual events or activities that contributed to increases in bioassay results during the gap

periods. This supports the NIOSH position that the swipe results on either side of the gap

periods can be used to extrapolate data in the gap periods.

The Section 4.1.1 (Ref. #10) and its revision (Ref. #11) dated July 6, 2012 provide three graphs

of the NIOSH‐developed swipe data, showing data “gaps.” The following section of the report,

Availability of Additional Data Sources (4.1.2), claims to point out data that was not considered

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH

or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This

document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor.

This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC

§552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Page 7 of 17
                                             

                                       

                              

                              

                           

                                       

           

       

                              

                              

                                   

                                  

                                  

                              

                       

                               

                               

                            

                                     

     

                             

                                  

                                 

                              

                         

                              

                               

   

Response, Rev. 1 Action Items from Mound Work Group Meeting (June 5, 2012) August 22, 2012

by NIOSH. If true, this would mean that data gaps are actually smaller than presented below,

which reproduce Figures 4‐6 in SC&A’s report. Each figure has dose data plotted against the

right hand axis. The parameter plotted was the average dose for the top 50% of annual doses.

The source of the data is the HP_TRITIUM Table from the MESH database. Prior to October 1,

1981 only annual dose data is available in MESH. The doses for all samples collected during the

fiscal year were summed and assigned to September 30th. For October 1, 1981 and later,

monthly intakes in microcuries as well as the doses are available.

The trends indicated from the graph of the average doses clearly indicates that the dose trends

were not increasing as a result of unusual high activity during operations or scrap recovery that

resulted in increased biological uptakes of tritium. These also corroborate that the swipe data

from both sides of the gaps can be used to extrapolate the swipe data to within the gaps for R‐

108 and SW‐8.

Additionally, SC&A has provided in section 4.2.1 (Ref. #11) of their report the sources where

additional swipe source data are available to fill in some of data gaps in the NIOSH report.

Tables of some of this additional data are shown in Tables 3 through 7 and should populate

about two‐thirds of the missing data in R‐108 for 1980. NIOSH will revise our whitepaper

before dose reconstructions are performed with this empirical data for Mound workers using

our model. In reviewing this new data, our expectation is that the 95th percentile intakes will

not effectively change, and any changes would not affect the fact that the doses can be

bounded.

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH

or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This

document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor.

This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC

§552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Page 8 of 17
                                             

                                       

                              

                              

                           

                                       

           

       

                               

                       

         

Response, Rev. 1 Action Items from Mound Work Group Meeting (June 5, 2012) August 22, 2012

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Jan‐83

May‐83

Sep‐83

Jan‐84

May‐84

Sep‐84

Jan‐85

May‐85

Sep‐85

Jan‐86

May‐86

Sep‐86

Jan‐87

May‐87

Sep‐87

Jan‐88

May‐88

Sep‐88

Jan‐89

May‐89

Sep‐89

Dose (mrem)

Number of Swipes

Swipes & Average Dose for the Top 50% by Period for Room

R‐108 (1983‐1989)

Swipes Average dose for Top 50% (mrem)

Figure 1. Swipes and average dose for the top 50% by period for Room R‐108 (1983‐1989)

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH

or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This

document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor.

This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC

§552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Page 9 of 17
                                             

                                       

                              

                              

                           

                                       

           

       

                             

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

                         

                                 

                            

                           

                           

                            

                           

                           

                       

         

Response, Rev. 1 Action Items from Mound Work Group Meeting (June 5, 2012) August 22, 2012

Figure 2 Swipes and average dose for top 50% by period for Room SW‐8 (1980‐1989)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Jan‐80

Jun‐80

Nov‐80

Apr‐81

Sep‐81Feb‐82

Jul‐82

Dec‐82

May‐83

Oct‐83

Mar‐84

Aug‐84

Jan‐85

Jun‐85

Nov‐85

Apr‐86

Sep‐86Feb‐87

Jul‐87

Dec‐87

May‐88

Oct‐88

Mar‐89

Dose (mrem)

Number of Swipes

Swipes & Average Dose for Top 50% by Period for Room SW‐8

(1980‐1989)

Swipes Average dose for Top 50% (mrem)

(1d) Discuss dose reconstruction during the Decommissioning and

Decontamination periods.

Decommissioning and decontamination (D&D) was a continuous activity at Mound, but the “full

blown” D&D period for the Mound plant did not start until 1998 or 1999 (Ref. #7, SRDB

#110988). During the D&D period, there was the recognition for a “technology shortfall” with

respect to the ability to detect highly insoluble tritides through bioassay monitoring (Ref. #6,

SRDB #39682), that is, existing bioassay methods were not sensitive enough to detect the

regulatory limit of 100 mrem/yr. Interviews with Mound staff which were responsible for the

monitoring workers for tritides during the D&D period indicated that all workers with the

potential to inhale insoluble tritides wore breathing zone (BZ) air samplers and their exposure

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH

or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This

document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor.

This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC

§552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Page 10 of 17
                                             

                                       

                              

                              

                           

                                       

           

       

                      

                          

                         

                            

                   

                       

                           

                               

                           

            

                       

                       

                           

                               

Response, Rev. 1 Action Items from Mound Work Group Meeting (June 5, 2012) August 22, 2012

was monitored through DAC‐Hr tracking. This additional monitoring was instituted around

1999. The assumption was made that tritium activity measured in the urine represented

intakes of soluble forms, whereas beta activity detected on the BZ particulate samplers

represented the insoluble forms. The BZ filters were counted using either liquid scintillation or

proportional counting. A Mound technical basis document was developed which documented

the methodology behind this practice and dose reconstruction (Ref. #8, SRDB # 32921).

A Research Chemist interviewed indicated that the SMTs of interest would have been worked

only in the glove boxes and that the this equipment was surveyed and deconned to “cold”

standards by the laboratory workers prior to D&D activities were undertaken for reasons of

classification (Ref. #1, SRDB # 116978).

The following is an example of Mound Interoffice Correspondence instructions describing RWPs

which reflects the typical understanding that the radiological protection program managers had

implemented as a result of their understanding, hazards and concerns in order to restrict

exposures from the tritide work being conducted at Mound during the late 1990s (Ref. #6, SRDB

# 39682).

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH

or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This

document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor.

This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC

§552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Page 11 of 17
                                             

       

Response, Rev. 1 Action Items from Mound Work Group Meeting (June 5, 2012) August 22, 2012

Page 12 of 17
 
                                             

       

Response, Rev. 1 Action Items from Mound Work Group Meeting (June 5, 2012) August 22, 2012

Page 13 of 17
 
                                             

       

Response, Rev. 1 Action Items from Mound Work Group Meeting (June 5, 2012) August 22, 2012

Page 14 of 17
 
                                             

       

Response, Rev. 1 Action Items from Mound Work Group Meeting (June 5, 2012) August 22, 2012

Page 15 of 17
 
                                             

       

   

Response, Rev. 1 Action Items from Mound Work Group Meeting (June 5, 2012) August 22, 2012

Page 16 of 17
 
                                             

                                     

                            

                           

                            

       

                                

       

                     

   

                     

                       

                               

                           

               

                           

   

                       

                                 

                     

             

                       

           

                   

                             

                     

                       

  

                           

  

Response, Rev. 1 Action Items from Mound Work Group Meeting (June 5, 2012) August 22, 2012

REFERENCES

1.	 Documented Communication with [redacted]on Mound Tritium Issues, July 2012, SRDB Ref. ID

#116978

2.	 Documented Communication with [redacted]on Work that May Have Involved Using Work Place

Monitoring Indicators for Insoluble Stable Metal Tritides (SMT) that Could Have Been Encountered

During the D&D of the R and SW Buildings, February 2012, SRDB Ref. ID #108244

3.	 Brant Ulsh’s Notes on Interviews Conducted on April 6, 2010 with[redacted], [redacted], [redacted],

[redacted]and[redacted], April 2010, SRDB Ref. ID #107797

4.	 Investigation of the Contamination Tracking Incident in SW/R Tritium Complex, July 1993, SRDB Ref.

ID #48837

5.	 SW‐209 Contamination Incident Report, March 1994, SRDB Ref. ID #48857

6.	 Information Regarding the Health and Safety of Metal Tritides, July 1998, SRDB Ref. ID #39682

7.	 Documented Communication with [redacted]on His Work at Mound Pertaining to D&D Activities,

February 2012, SRDB Ref. ID #110988

8.	 Technical Basis Document for Stable Tritiated Particulate and Organically Bound Tritium, January

2000, SRDB Ref. ID #32921

9.	 Documented Communication with [redacted]on Summary of Health Physics Tritium Swipe Practices

at Mound during 1980 through 1084 Follow‐up Interview, January 2012, SRDB Ref. ID #107056

10. SC&A Report ‐ Mound Laboratory Site Potential Exposures to Stable Metal Tritides, May 2012

11. SC&A Report ‐ Mound Laboratory Site Potential Exposures to Stable Metal Tritides, Revision 1, July

2012

12.	 Interview Notes Discussing Source Terms and Solubility of Tritides/ H‐3, Dec.2008, SRDB #

55962

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or

its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not

final NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically

marked as such. This document represents preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by

NIOSH or its contractor.

Notice: This report may contain information that is protected by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a.

Page 17 of 17